dhw: So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.

DAVID: Good.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. This can only mean that you have agreed that bacteria are intelligent. Progress at last!

DAVID: Your view of 'intelligence' is never mine. I'm just trying to be agreeable.

dhw: What attributes would you regard as proof of intelligence?

DAVID: The disagreement is that I maintain what looks intelligent can be the result of intelligent instructions.

Yes, I know. You said your view of intelligence was not the same as mine, so it would be interesting to know what are your criteria for intelligence.

DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

DAVID: And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.

dhw: So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”

DAVID: When you touch a hot stove, your hand is moved before you have thought through what needs be done. That is the automaticity I'm describing.

Agreed. Hardly a problem. How about problem-solving?